BadgerHopeful

Not to mention the fact that of the 8 Ivies, one doesn't even have a PhD program, and two others aren't in the top 10 (one of which isn't even in the top 15) if you look at US News.*

*Which, of course, comes with its many, many flaws.

It could just be me, but I have certainly detected a bit of hostility creeping about the History forum lately. I know that this is a stressful time of year - we are all working on our Masters theses, or finishing up undergrad, or generally twidling our thumbs while waiting desperately and anxiously for decisions. Or perhaps we are all just cranky from our New Years diets. In any case, I think it's important to remember that we are all in this together, and hostility doesn't help, well, anything.

Disagreement among historians regarding historical matters is an inevitability. Indeed, disagreement can be very productive, as we learn from each others varying viewpoints. But there is healthy disagreement (a civil discussion of differing opinions) and unhealthy disagreement. Let's make a more concerted effort - all of us - to stay the course of the former.

Just notified that I've been admitted to Princeton!!!!

Now, how do I choose?







Admitted: Princeton (PhD), Oxford (MPhil), Cambridge (MPhil)

I'm sure they would be very understanding, especially at a Jew-heavy place like Penn.

Oh cool - my parents were both Weathermen. They have lots of interesting stories about the Movement.

It could just be me, but I have certainly detected a bit of hostility creeping about the History forum lately. I know that this is a stressful time of year - we are all working on our Masters theses, or finishing up undergrad, or generally twidling our thumbs while waiting desperately and anxiously for decisions. Or perhaps we are all just cranky from our New Years diets. In any case, I think it's important to remember that we are all in this together, and hostility doesn't help, well, anything.

Disagreement among historians regarding historical matters is an inevitability. Indeed, disagreement can be very productive, as we learn from each others varying viewpoints. But there is healthy disagreement (a civil discussion of differing opinions) and unhealthy disagreement. Let's make a more concerted effort - all of us - to stay the course of the former.

Technically, the 70s was from 32-41 years ago. Gotta count the s in there

I mean, so long as we're nitpicking

It could just be me, but I have certainly detected a bit of hostility creeping about the History forum lately. I know that this is a stressful time of year - we are all working on our Masters theses, or finishing up undergrad, or generally twidling our thumbs while waiting desperately and anxiously for decisions. Or perhaps we are all just cranky from our New Years diets. In any case, I think it's important to remember that we are all in this together, and hostility doesn't help, well, anything.

Disagreement among historians regarding historical matters is an inevitability. Indeed, disagreement can be very productive, as we learn from each others varying viewpoints. But there is healthy disagreement (a civil discussion of differing opinions) and unhealthy disagreement. Let's make a more concerted effort - all of us - to stay the course of the former.

Nothing turns off students, particularly undergraduates, more than arrogance, and that distasteful trait is often acquired in graduate school. The presence of backstabbing in academia doesn't mean one needs to begin sharpening a knife now. With a PhD completion rate often under 50% in history departments, it stands to reason that quite a lot more can be achieved through mutual support than competition. It's one reason, in fact, that I chose the department I did.


There's also the fact that such bitter disagreements are often downright embarrassing when viewed by the greater public, particularly since many of these issues are viewed as trivial matters.

It could just be me, but I have certainly detected a bit of hostility creeping about the History forum lately. I know that this is a stressful time of year - we are all working on our Masters theses, or finishing up undergrad, or generally twidling our thumbs while waiting desperately and anxiously for decisions. Or perhaps we are all just cranky from our New Years diets. In any case, I think it's important to remember that we are all in this together, and hostility doesn't help, well, anything.

Disagreement among historians regarding historical matters is an inevitability. Indeed, disagreement can be very productive, as we learn from each others varying viewpoints. But there is healthy disagreement (a civil discussion of differing opinions) and unhealthy disagreement. Let's make a more concerted effort - all of us - to stay the course of the former.

It could just be me, but I have certainly detected a bit of hostility creeping about the History forum lately. I know that this is a stressful time of year - we are all working on our Masters theses, or finishing up undergrad, or generally twidling our thumbs while waiting desperately and anxiously for decisions. Or perhaps we are all just cranky from our New Years diets. In any case, I think it's important to remember that we are all in this together, and hostility doesn't help, well, anything.

Disagreement among historians regarding historical matters is an inevitability. Indeed, disagreement can be very productive, as we learn from each others varying viewpoints. But there is healthy disagreement (a civil discussion of differing opinions) and unhealthy disagreement. Let's make a more concerted effort - all of us - to stay the course of the former.

Not to be snarky, but you do realize that Columbia gets over 500 applications that it needs to process and the staff was on a holiday break for the last 3 weeks?

I know lots of people that say they work 70-80 hours per week and can't think of anyone that actually does. I can't write during typical business hours, so I reserve writing for late at night (10pm-2am). I do put in a few hours of work during the day as well. I don't typically do lots of work on the weekends, particularly not in the fall. This has worked well for me, though I'm planing to tweak it this coming semester. Graduate school can consume all of your time if you let it. I personally refuse to let that happen.

I Skyped with a professor at one of the schools a few months ago. So obviously he saw a very pretty picture of me from a cousin's bar mitzvah.

The Adcoms: "Well, she does seem like a good fit for our department. But her GPA is... kind of low for a MA student. It's like 3.2, isn't it?"

Potential Advisor: "Um.... what? I talked with her a few months ago and she seems really bright! I want to give her a try."

The Adcoms: "But, dude, we've got stronger applicants who are just as bright... with a HIGHER GPA."

Potential Advisor: "So? She's really excited to come! Please, I really want her. She may not exactly be in my field but she's got great ideas that I'd like to explore with her."

The Adcoms: "Dude, you already have...what? 4 grad students? What do you need another one for? Even if her project idea does sound... compelling."

Potential Advisor: "Don't make me do this." *cringes in his seat*

The Adcoms: "Do what? You win or lose. There is no middle ground."

Potential Advisor: *flashes a picture of me* "Please? We need some beautiful women in the program!"

The Adcoms: "Whoa... she is beautiful..." *stammers* "I guess you get this one, Dude. She's accepted. I guess you can e-mail her."

(Potential Advisor walks out of the room)

Adcom #1: (calls after the Potential Advisor) "Yeah, don't forget to tell her that her advisor's going to f*ck her!"

Adcom #2: "Did we just pull a Legally Blonde moment here?"

Adcom #3: "He's a lucky dog. Let me look at her SOP again so I can figure out my chances of being on her committee!"

Adcom #4: (to Adcom #5) "I'm suspicious. We, historians, aren't that shallow, aren't we?"

Adcom #5: "No we aren't that shallow. Her SOP is a killer, really. I just felt like being a Simon Cowell to Dude."


(thanks for thread, I'm seriously laughing now! )

It's still a fuzzy thing. Historians have yet to grasp the exact definition or it or exactly how to conceptualize it. Some historians get very annoyed when it's used interchangeably with "International History," with is supposedly more diplomatic focus.


Why? I am already am very interested in quantitative research and it certainly has nothing to do with politics but rather an analysis of budgets from business lens and community from sociological lens. I like numbers to give more of a stark view of what exactly happened and how it all tied with my findings and analysis. Also Internet is proven to be incredibly. You just need to be adept at keyword searches. It takes serious practice and spending a lot of time with the Subject category in your library's database. You also learn to read your sources much more closely to find more specific keywords that will help you with your computer searches. Even better, it has taught me to be more efficient researcher by scanning only for those keywords and telling the archivists precisely what I'm looking for and get the right reel. On the other hand, I am glad I'm not going to be Obama's or Dubya's historian, with all the news and blogs out there. There's also the problem of determining whether or not that blog is legit for a source. I have mixed feelings, really.


I do use presentism in my work because I deal with immigration and public responses. I have to show their emotions to dramatize my story and make my point clear. My advisor also goes for that style.


The next Cold War, or World War III. Although it can come back, but will be more focused on the current hot spots (Israel-Palestinian conflict, Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan/India, N. Korea). So I wouldn't expect much of US-focused military history.




Oh, I agree! I'm actually getting a kick out of reading my topic from feminist or female perspective, as well as gay. Although I'm still reluctant to take women's history seriously but I am open to it. I'm just more drawn in ethnicity, which I do believe that within American history, it's very, very important. It would be interesting to see if it spreads over to Europe with the recent immigration.


Agreed. I use a combination of sociology, psychology, anthropology, and economics to analyze my findings. This is why I despite methodology classes. I just find "straight" history to be quite boring. I've challenged my professors on the readings- asking why this or that, taking from another discipline's approach.


Agreed. I've been asked whether I do transnational or comparative history. If I suggest comparative, they find it a lot less interesting than if I say transnational. Sometimes you'll discover that historical events are truly apples and oranges that there's nothing to discuss. However, one can salvage a project by making a fluid connection between subjects in a way that it all ties to one them instead of saying "A is this, B is not that." But more like "A went through this, and then later B went it and we can examine through the lens of one and another of what was available and what was not." If one gives a full picture, it's much more engaging than doing a comparative paper like we used to do in elementary or middle school.




Always funny to see historians read books written by someone who would not strongly identify with the subject. They become baffled but truly appreciate the perspective.

My prediction is a chance to step back and re-examine 20th century when papers become declassified and as this generation becomes part of a more globalized world than in the past... And then take our perspectives and connect themes to previous centuries to see how much the human world really has evolved. Sometimes, though, I fear that historians will say that nothing's evolved, and then I'll ask what the hell I was studying for, if there's nothing to study.

Also, Wikileaks is SO not part of the future. It's my nightmare as a historian. Anyone see that latest Chronicle opinion article about it?

Don't stress over it. Everyone - and I mean everyone - has something they wish they had changed/edited before they sent in their applications.

Don't stress over it. Everyone - and I mean everyone - has something they wish they had changed/edited before they sent in their applications.

Yay! Must be a relief. Meanwhile, two of my professors haven't sent in any of their letters yet, and some of them are due on the 1st.